Collector Of Central Excise, Ahmedabad
v.
Pioma Industries And Imperial Soda Factory
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 6426 Of 1995 | 24-01-1997
1. This appeal is against the order dated 31-3-1994, passed by the CEGAT rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and consequently dismissing the appeal as time barred. The appeal was filed in the Tribunal on 19-6-1989 against the order of the Collector dated 14-4-1987. The submission of learned Additional Solicitor General is that sub-section (5) of Section 35-A imposes a duty on the Collector (Appeals) to communicate the order passed by him to the appellant, the adjudicating authority and the Collector of Central Excise, but this was not done; and the appeal was filed in the CEGAT on getting information much later in a different manner, after obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Collector The contention is that the question of limitation for filing the appeal before the CEGAT should have been considered on this basis
2. It appears that the contention based on Section 35-A (S) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, at least in this form was not raised before the Tribunal since it does not find any mention in the Tribunals order. However the point being one of law, the same is permitted to be raised. The decision on the question based on Section 35-A (S) would depend on certain facts and, therefore, it is appropriate that the point is considered in the first instance by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for this purpose
3. For the above reason, we set aside the Tribunals order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the question whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal is within time and if not, whether a ground has been made out for condonation of delay, if any, in the filing of that appeal with a advertance to the above observations.
4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
2. It appears that the contention based on Section 35-A (S) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, at least in this form was not raised before the Tribunal since it does not find any mention in the Tribunals order. However the point being one of law, the same is permitted to be raised. The decision on the question based on Section 35-A (S) would depend on certain facts and, therefore, it is appropriate that the point is considered in the first instance by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for this purpose
3. For the above reason, we set aside the Tribunals order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the question whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal is within time and if not, whether a ground has been made out for condonation of delay, if any, in the filing of that appeal with a advertance to the above observations.
4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Advocates List
For
Petitioner/Plaintiff/Appellant (s) Advocates SANDEEP SHARAD JINSIWALE
Respondent/Defendant (s)Advocates SANJAY D. GAIKWAD ADV. FOR R.NO 1(CAVEAT & VP FILE, ASHOK B. TAJANE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE J. S. VERMA
HON'BLE JUSTICE S. P. KURDUKAR
Eq Citation
1997 (91) ELT 527 (SC)
(1997) 10 SCC 400
LQ/SC/1997/109
HeadNote
Excise — Central Excise Act, 1944 — S. 35-A(5) — Time limit for filing appeal to Tribunal — When appeal filed much later, held, question of limitation for filing appeal before Tribunal should have been considered on basis of non-communication of order by Collector Appeals to appellant — Matter remitted to Tribunal for consideration afresh
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.